Talk:Bill Veeck

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeBill Veeck was a Sports and recreation good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 7, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed

Untitled[edit]

A truly excellent article. Only change that I would think about making is a mention of his autobiography, Veeck as in Wreck, but I won't touch an article that good to change anything myself!

Rlquall 21 July 2004 17:55 UTC

What about Bill Giles?[edit]

This entry says "Veeck was the last owner to purchase a baseball franchise without an independent fortune," but I think the chairman/owner of the Phillies, Bill Giles, had to mortage his home when he bought the team in the early 1980s. Giles wasn't "poor" by any means but he definitely did not have an independent fortune.

photo[edit]

The best we can do for a photo is one of the hall of fame?

Date confusion - L.A. expansion versus selling White Sox[edit]

I'm a little confused - if Veeck was forced by ill health to sell his team in 1961, why ws he shortly afterward considering buying into another one. On the the other hand, the expansion occurred in 1961, but discussion about who would own it would have heppened in late 1960, so that is possible, but why would Veeck have considered being part-owner of an expansion team if he already owned the White Sox? What he already thinking of selling the? In which case, perhaps his ill health may have been exacerbated by all this wheeling and dealing.4.68.248.130 (talk) 19:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bill Veeck/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start this review now and work on it over the next few days.

The first thing I notice is that the sourcing is actually pretty bad. The quantity is alright, but the sources chosen trouble me. I question the reliability of the following sources:

  • 1 - My Hero Project Done
  • 2 - Spiritus-Temporis Done
  • 4 - NNDB Done
  • 10 - Serving history Done
  • 13/14/17 - Baseball Almanac Done
  • 18 - Howstuffworks Done
  • 21 - Ballparks.com Done
  • 30 - Baseball reliquary Done
  • I'm not positive about baseball library either, but I'll hold off judgment on that one.
    • I'll agree for most of them as unreliable, but I believe Baseball Almanac and HowStuffWorks are okay. Not sure though.--LAAFan 16:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also ballparks.com was used when I brought MLB to GA a while ago. (no longer ga though)

Also, any book sources that are used need individual page numbers for whatever's being cited. The books themselves can be in a separate references section and the current one renamed to notes. Some of the cites above might be okay if we can find proof they're accepted professionally. There are a lot of articles on Veeck out there, in newspapers, books, magazines, etc. so we should be using the good ones, not settling for mediocre refs. I want to see this become a GA but it's not going to be unless good references are used. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ballparks.com I'll let go for now, it seems alright to me. Baseball Almanac I've had to replace in FACs before, so I guess it's not reliable. Howstuffworks I have no idea either way; I still think there's better sources out there to use, though I'll look at that one again to see if I can prove it one way or the other. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not that I expect this to be closed soon anyway, but just in case, could this GAN be left open for a few days. I'll hopefully make some edits on Wednesday.--LAAFan 04:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      That's fine. I'll do the first prose review sometime over the next couple days, as well as seeing parts that could be expanded. I'll use the time you're gone to look for sources to help you out with that. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which parts do you feel should be expanded? I'm on and off editing, but I can look for sources.--LAAFan 16:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the prose review; after that's fixed I can do an expansion look.

  • "At age 13 Veeck" comma after number Done
  • Anything else on the Milwaukee tenure? It goes through the five years pretty quick.
    • No. The Milwaukee tenure I had trouble finding sources for considering it was a minor league team.--LAAFan 20:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So.. did he take plan to buy the Phillies or not? The way it's written is a bit off, hard to describe. Done
  • "In 1946, Veeck finally became the owner of a major league team, the Cleveland Indians." Finally doesn't seem appropriate here, remove. Done
  • All the pipelinks for years (i.e. 1920 in baseball|1920) should be removed. Done
  • When book sources are used, individual page numbers should be used for references, with the books themselves being in its own separate reference section. Done

These are some things I found, I'll probably ask for a second opinion from a non-baseball person to get a better look at the prose. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good so far; what I'm going to do is ask for a second opinion on the prose, since I'll probably miss a lot of jargon issues, being a baseball fan and all. I know a couple people who would be good for this, I'll ask them, then I'll think of where we could expand, then it should be good to go. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would really like to see this article become an FA, but I feel like it's missing content, with too many stubby paragraphs some of the sources are questionable at best like Baseball Library. There are some sources out there about Veeck [1] is a book you could use, also the Sporting news archives at Paperofrecord.com would provide tons of information. I would pass it as a GA but it needs some heavy work and tons of research to make it a FA. Thanks Secret account 03:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chipping in a couple of specifics here:

  • Section "Milwaukee Brewers" has long stretches of prose with no references cited.
  • Section "Philadelphia Phillies": however unpleasant Landis' actions may have been, calling him a "virulent racist" is a NPOV problem. You can state that he was regarded as a racist, but you have to immediately cite it with a strong reference, and you can't attach strongly-emotional modifier words like "virulent" to it. Modifiers like "outspoken", or maybe even "unapologetic", are OK, but the references need to support their use.
  • Section "Chicago White Sox": Last sentence of first paragraph- way too long, should be two or three separate sentences. It's got three different subjects: the attendance, the scoreboards, and the jerseys.
  • second paragraph: I'm very wary of the word "reportedly" in articles: this is not the place for rumor. If it was reliably reported that this happened, then say that it happened, and leave it at that. If it's unreliably reported, then find other sources, or consider leaving it out. You can include a rumor if it's stated as such, and if it has some real bearing on the article; as in a popular urban legend that bears acknowledging or debunking, or a rumor that forced someone to change their course of action. This doesn't appear to be one of those cases, and it probably deserves another source and maybe some more detail (i.e., why did the bid fail?)
  • section "Life after baseball": there's something that feels scattered about those four short paragraphs. The first two could easily be combined. The prose in the fourth is awkward. That paragraph needs cleaned up, and it could be combined with the third paragraph. You've basically got one section dealing with his post-retirement lifestyle, and one dealing with his death and survivors; therefore, two paragraphs instead of four. Dementia13 (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sarastro1:

I've mainly looked at prose and noted one or two other things.

  • General Prose
    • "who wrote several columns about what he'd do differently if he ran the Cubs": contraction (he'd). Maybe rephrase "how he would have run the Cubs differently".
    • "Growing up, young Bill Veeck worked..." No need for "young". And I might add "While growing up..."
    • Section title "As an owner" may be better as "Franchise owner"
    • "In 1941, Veeck left Chicago and purchased the American Association Milwaukee Brewers, in a partnership with former Cubs star and manager Charlie Grimm.": Maybe slightly rephrase to "In 1941, Veeck left Chicago and, in partnership with former Cubs star and manager Charlie Grimm, purchased the American Association Milwaukee Brewers."
    • "There was no rule against that activity as such, so he got away with it... until one day when he took it to an extreme, rolling it out when the opponents batted, and pulling it back when the Brewers batted.": No need for ellipsis here, "got away with it" is too informal as is "until one day". Not really appropriate for an encyclopedia.
    • "shortly thereafter" Too wordy.
    • Incidently, no refs at all in 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of "Milwaukee Brewers" section.
    • "He then claimed that when Commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis": Very clunky. Why not just "When Commissioner..." (the previous sentence shows who is claiming it)
    • "putting his own indelible stamp on the franchise": Indelible stamp is very informal and not quite neutral. Can this be rephrased?
    • (nitpick) "for good": Why not "permenantly"?
    • "Although Veeck had become extremely popular, an attempt in 1947 to trade more popular player-manager Lou Boudreau": Repetition of popular.
    • "Veeck, in response, Veeck said he would "bow to the will of the fans"...": Needs clearing up.
    • "Veeck spited Cardinals owner..." Spited not necessary and is POV. Just state what he did.
    • Several uses of "famous" or "memorable": Needs to say with whom it was memorable, and I'm not a fan of such expressions myself.
    • "Shortly afterwards "Grandstand Manager's Day" - involving Veeck, Connie Mack, and thousands of regular fans, directing the entirety of the game via placards: the Browns won, 5-3, snapping a four-game losing streak." This sentence does not parse.
    • "he decided to cede St. Louis to the Cardinals" Don't think "cede" is the best word. Could it be rephrased?
    • "...looking to bring big-league ball to Baltimore..." A touch informal.
    • "One year after the 1959 pennant..." So, 1960?
    • "a team owned by a master promoter..." POV?
    • "got wind of the deal..." Maybe "heard of the deal"?
    • "The 1979 season was arguably Veeck's most colorful and controversial." Says who?
    • "after a 10–2 Opening Day shellacking..." POV and far too informal.
    • "Then on July 12, Veeck, with an assist from son Mike and radio host Steve Dahl..." No need for "then" and "with an assist" is informal. With assistance?
    • "Veeck could be seen sitting in the bleachers with the people he loved most- the fans..." Sound like a fan piece.
    • Refs for books by Veek?
  • Jargon
    • "he claimed to have installed a screen to make the right field target a little more difficult for left-handed pull hitters of the opposing team." Lost me a little here. What kind of screen and how would it make it harder for the opposing team. And what is a pull hitter?
    • "hurler": A pitcher, I assume?
    • "As in Milwaukee, Veeck took a unique approach to promotions, hiring Max Patkin, the "Clown Prince of Baseball", as a coach. Patkin's appearance in the coaching box delighted fans and infuriated the front office of the American League." Some context needed here on who Patkin is. And "unique approach" is too informal. Presumably this means "unorthodox approach" which would read better.
    • "to pinch hit in the bottom..." Maybe some explanations or preferably linking needed here.
    • "Wearing elf like shoes and a 1/8 as his uniform": Erm... What?
    • "Gaedel was walked on four straight pitches and then was pulled for a pinch runner" Linking or explanation, please.
    • "Veeck suggested that the American League clubs share radio and television revenue with visiting clubs." Not sure what is going on here. Why did he propose this? What was the current arrangement? What is the significance?
    • "For the Browns to move, the minor league Brewers would be shut down. " Why would they be shut down?
    • "The Braves wanted another team with the same talent..." I don't really understand what the connection is between these two team. And what does "another team with the same talent" mean?
    • "a practice now standard by 25 of 30 clubs on all jerseys, and by three more clubs on road jerseys." May be better to say "Now standard practice by 25 out of 30 clubs on all their (uniforms?) jerseys and by three more on (away uniforms?)" Road jerseys needs explaining more.
    • "In an attempt to adapt to free agency he developed a "rent-a-player" model, centering on the acquisition of other clubs' stars in their option years." This needs explaining for the general reader; I don't follow it at all!
    • There is mention of the controversy surrounding one of his books but it is not mentioned otherwise in the article. As the controversy is mentioned, there should be info about the book, when he wrote it, what it said, etc.
  • Other points
    • Some very short paragraphs.
    • Several places seem to be lacking refs entirely, but I have not otherwise checked out the refs.

In terms of prose, I believe this article still has some way to go to reach GA. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LAAFan and myself will work on what has been noted, thanks for the extra opinions. Per notes on our talk page though, for now I'm failing this GAN, and hopefully it can get up to re-nomination status soon. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see "the late historian Jules Tygiel" referenced. Nearly everyone mentioned in this article is now deceased, so I'd question this usage of "late," unless it's somehow significant (e.g., the man's last words or something like that. [Sorry for double edit: I had forgotten to log in.] WHPratt (talk) 17:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bill Veeck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Bill Veeck. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "the late"[edit]

" ... Subsequently, the article was strongly challenged by the late historian Jules Tygiel, who refuted it point-by-point in an article in the 2006 issue of SABR's The Baseball Research Journal,[7] and in an appendix, entitled "Did Bill Veeck Lie About His Plan to Purchase the ’43 Phillies?", published in Paul Dickson's biography, Bill Veeck: Baseball's Greatest Maverick.[8]"

I question the need for "late." I suspect that Tygiel was recently deceased at the time this text was added., However, it's not as if the the refutation was published posthumously, so I see no need to single him out in an article wherein just about every other person mentioned is deceased. WHPratt (talk) 14:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another son?[edit]

This is the obituary for my high school physics teacher, Bill Veeck III, who died too young. He was Bill Jr.'s oldest son. Why is he not listed with the other children?
https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1985-01-30-8501060569-story.html
DaKine (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Veeck's autobiography, he explains that he had his first marriage annulled (he mentioned Pauline Privilege, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_privilege) so that he could marry a Catholic woman within that Church. Perhaps he didn't refer to elements of that earlier marriage thereafter. WHPratt (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Phillies transaction[edit]

Added material to clarify what the Tygiel rebuttal article concerned and what his conclusions were. Arnold Rothstein1921 (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bill_Veeck&oldid=1206828796"